Anglican Church slammed for excluding same-sex spouses from 2020 conference by Hugo Greenhalgh | @hugo_greenhalgh | Thomson Reuters Foundation Monday, 18 February 2019 16:50 GMT LONDON, Feb 18 (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Leading gay Christians have accused the Anglican Church of hypocrisy following its decision to ban same-sex spouses from attending the church's 2020 global conference. Canon Jeremy Pemberton, who in 2014 became the first Church of England priest to wed his same-sex partner, said the move to exclude LGBT+ spouses "panders to the views of the most extremely conservative" members of the Anglican Church. "I just think they increase public revulsion at their hypocrisy and their inability to treat people decently," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation on Monday. "Imagine receiving an invitation (that says), 'By the way your spouse isn't allowed to come as they're the wrong gender.' "It's incredibly insulting and every LGBT person inside the Church of England and outside will be revolted by this kind of hypocritical and discriminatory behaviour." Pemberton's comments come after the secretary general of the Anglican Communion, Josiah Idowu-Fearon, published a blog on Friday that stated "it would be inappropriate for same-sex spouses to be invited to the conference". The Lambeth Conference, due to take place in Canterbury, England, is held once every 10 years. It brings together representatives of the 85 million-strong church, which has a presence in more than 165 countries around the world. The invitation process needed to take into account "the Anglican Communion's position on marriage which is that it is the lifelong union of a man and a woman", Idowu-Fearon wrote. Click here for the rest of the article: http://news.trust.org//item/20190218164100-yb5kz/
If "the Anglican Communion's position on marriage...is that it is the lifelong union of a man and a woman," then individuals such as Rev. Pemberton should do the right thing and leave the Communion. What kind of person would join an organization that openly disagrees with their beliefs? The Modernist and Revisionist crowd whine about not being treated decently, and about the Church being hypocritical, yet they joined/remain in it even though they know its teachings. They are the true hypocrites, since they claim to be members of a body with who's teachings they disagree.
Whilst I take your point, I don't wholly concur. In the first instance the Communion is a membership body made up of Churches in the various outposts of what was once and empire. Those churches in the main are not per se membership churches, but rather churches that serve in the wider context of society. Our worship as such is public worship, not a private service. When it comes to marriage the individual churches have their own control of how they understand the rite/sacrament to be understood and administered. Yes it is a hot issue, with at least three churches I am aware of inside the communion have set in place provisions for single gender matrimony. Anglicans have always been bound together in diversity. For many I know that this is a step too far, which is why we have seen the rise of Alternative Anglican Groupings. The Latin Church has a top down autocratic structure, with an agree of leave sign on the door. Anglican Ecclesiology is in no way driven in the same way, for we have both Synods and Bishops, and authority is more difficult to define in an absolute sense. My view is that I concur with the sense of integrity suggesting that Lambeth 2020 spouses be understood in line with the tradition of the church more broadly, especially given that the matter is so hot, none the less I am less keen for us to take a Latin Autocratic style as the way to sort the issue. It has not worked in the past, and is unlikely to work in the future.
I understand the point you are making, Botolph, but I think my comments would apply to other denominations as well. So often the revisionists cry about how they are being hurt, excluded, mistreated when, in fact, the churches involved are simply following their own written rules. The UMC is a case in point. They have a Book of Discipline. Of course they can change it, but until they do, the honorable thing is to obey it or leave.
I support same-sex marriage and ordination. However, there needs to be an understanding that this is offensive to Anglicans from the developing world, who are in a different place than the American church. In order to preserve unity in the Anglican Communion, this is an important step, and unfortunately, people will be hurt in the process. There's no way to avoid hurting people, on either front.
This is not only offensive and to many anti-biblical to christians in the developing world, but to many in the developed world!
Indeed so. Its not like there aren’t 20 other churches in Britain which adopt a more liberal position on this they could join... The C of E should be in our prayers, because its status as a state church, and what already happened to the state Church of Scotland, makes it a prime target for people who want to destroy it. That it has managed to hold off the worst for longer than the other major Anglican churches in the English speaking world (except for the church in New South Wales) is simply miraculous.
Taking off my moderator hat here. This is me speaking as a member, and nothing else. I don't have the whole background of previous injuries that come with long time Anglicans, and even of this forum (having read back several years - wow). I have read jschwartz's comment several times, and please realize I come from an SBC background. I disagree with SSM&O. I actually don't think this is offensive, because I read it a couple times, and while jschwartz says he supports SSM&O, he is clearly saying he understands the developing world Anglicans feel differently, and that there should be a general understanding that they do. He is not implying lack of moral enlightenment at all, from my reading. He's simply stating a) how he feels, b) others, but especially "developing world" Anglicans, feel differently and c) people need to realize that. Consider that in light of TEC and others simply running roughshod rather than having a conversation at all (leaving out whether you think there should be a conversation). Now, jschwartz may disabuse me of my congenial interpretation, and you all may disagree with me, but that is what I read in that post. Also, regarding "developing world" Anglicans: I'm not sure I like that term, in fact I don't, but I read it in light of the East African upwelling of faith that is occurring, and the fact that the Global South is helping give voice and stands behind the traditional Christian values. They are many, and they are not being held back. The choice of terms though - what do you use? GAFCON? Global South? Developing World? Third World? Honestly, the air is so charged, that all of those terms are charged in the various areas of beliefs. There are TEC members who would chew glass and aluminum foil before they say "GAFCON". YMMV.
May I ask to have Biblical Scripture posted about the subject. If the Bible states it is wrong for same sex to be together, why do people follow the word of man over the word of the Lord? If man’s word is followed, than isn’t it putting the word of God beneath what man wants and thinks? Is it society conforming to the world to “fit in” and sweeping under the rug what the original intention of what mankind was to be according to God? Curiously asking a question... God bless you
There is nothing wrong with two people of the same sex who have agape love for one another to live under the same roof and build a relationship with each other. It wouldn't be wrong for them to draw up legal documents granting one another rights of property succession, hospital visitation, even power of attorney if certain circumstances (like incapacity) arise. The wrong comes in when they engage in sexual relations with each other. And I think it's wrong to call such a relationship a "marriage," because the word "marriage" has a near-universal, long-standing (millenia-long!) definition of a man-woman commitment both in the Bible and in societies. As for scriptures, here are a few... Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Jud 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. 1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; 1Ti 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 1Ti 1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. Mar 10:7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; Mar 10:8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. Mar 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.